The ethics of climbing Everest

[Kitergal]

discuss!

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5016536.stm

[E-rock]

COPULATE! Take this lame copulating topic over to telemarkTWATS.com

[cj001f]

kitergals scare me more than clowns

[Figger_Eight]

Yup.

 

[RuMR]

COPULATE! Take this lame copulating topic over to telemarkTWATS.com

 

whatsamatter E? You sound frustrated!

[olyclimber]

ya, what the fuck is wrong with you, E?

[ivan]

in the khumbu - if you bring a yeti in my tent i get ta fukit first!

[olyclimber]

That's copulate mind you!

[mattp]

I'm not really sure what your problem is, guys.

 

Every weekend we tie onto the rope with the idea that our partner is bound to save us and I bet everyone here would say it is lame - no criminal - for someone to walk by us when we were crying for help on, say, the Colchuck Glacier.

 

But Kitergal is lame for asking what we think about this?

[catbirdseat]

Given that the man was beyond help it was a question of offering comfort to the man by staying with him to death or at least unconsciousness. Only the exceptional person would do this for a total stranger. Since he was soloing, everyone was possibly a stranger to him. Had he been part of a party, chances are a friend might have stayed with him, but this was not the case. The behavior of the other climbers was excusable, not reprehensible.

[cj001f]

But Kitergal is lame for asking what we think about this?

yup. it'd be like deadliest catch meets the short bus.

[ivan]

criminal? like the god-samaritin law? didn't they do a "seinfeld" about that?

 

agreed that you're generally a low-life fuck-nut if you render no assistance to a dying man who could be saved by your ministrations, but the rub as carl points out lies when the victim is hopeless and the result of pausing potentially suicidal- i've never been to everest but from what i gather, near the summit it's a total madman's world where even very fit people are close to dying and the margin for error and the consequence of fuck-ups plain to all from the git-go - i believe, were i there, in a small party and ragged as ruins, i'd be leaving passed out strangers behind too, and feeling no worse about it than some soldier on a normandy beach running like hell for himself just to get out of the line of fire - i'm sure my family and friends would berate me for playing it any other way.

[E-rock]

I'm not really sure what your problem is, guys.

 

Every weekend we tie onto the rope with the idea that our partner is bound to save us and I bet everyone here would say it is lame - no criminal - for someone to walk by us when we were crying for help on, say, the Colchuck Glacier.

 

But Kitergal is lame for asking what we think about this?

 

There's no problem with Kitergal asking us what we think about it. By all means discusse, I'm just trying to avoid looking like that shitty copulating board about cross-country skiing, while simultaneously making fun of them. It's about integrity, man.

[dalius]

Do you find it interesting that that newspapers only focus on the double-amputee Ingalls as the person that left this dude to die? What about the 50 others that passed by? Whack I tell you. Whack.

 

Although I've never been above 20k, I'd imagine that crying for help on the colchuck glacier ain't the same as cryin' for help at 28,000 ft.

[mattp]

Yes, Dalius, crying for help on the Colchuck Glacier is different from crying for help at 28k. That was really my point: we have all thought about these issues at some level, even if we have not been to the top of Everest.

 

Even if not so directly applicable to our daily experience, this is surely as interesting a topic as whether or not there should be a belay bolt on some beginners climb or whatever...

 

Kitergirl had an idea that maybe it could be entertaining or perhaps even interesting to discuss this.

[dalius]

sorry. missed that one.

[chucK]

Truly a borderline case it seems. Though probably closer to Ivan's Normandy Beach scenario than Matt's on the Colchuck Glacier.

 

I have no illusion that I can understand the full seriousness of life up there from my office desk, but it certainly seems reasonable for people to believe that he was basically already dead.

 

Though the writer of that article states that apparently the first rule of First Aid was not applicable (assisting would not have endangered rescuers), I think that conclusion is far from clear. Who knows what's going to happen further on down the mountain? In a mountaineering situation it's always prudent to give yourself margin for error. If you spend the 30 extra minutes of oxygen you expect to have on sitting next to a frozen dying man, or dragging him down to the first steep spot, who's to say that you are not endangering yourself? That said, every one of those climbers were also endangering themselves more by continuing to the summit instead of turning around right there.

 

Truly an impossible case, at least for me, to judge from afar. I definitely think that if you are going to rail about this, you should at least not employ hindsight that the climbers did not have at the time they made their decisions. My guess though is that I'd consider this "excusable" but perhaps not "justifiable" in the nomenclature described by the article's author.

 

Without the first hand experience it's impossible for me to judge these individuals, but it does seem reasonable to philosophize on the general culture that allows shit like this to happen. It seems like currently, that coming upon a dead or dying climber has to be considered not just as a tragedy but a very likely objective hazard. It's something that might ruin your summit bid, and that you should probably plan for it. How weird is that?

[cj001f]

Do you find it interesting that that newspapers only focus on the double-amputee Ingalls as the person that left this dude to die? What about the 50 others that passed by? Whack I tell you. Whack.

 

Yeah, well that's the Kiwi/Oz press for you - the most selfcritical press in the world.

[mattp]

ChucK, you too seem to think I was suggesting that maybe a situation on colchuck glacier should be delt with the same way as the same situation at the summit of Everest. Believe me, I was not. I know three guys who were climbing at around 25,000 feet and encountered a missing climber (well, two of them did).

 

The first guy saw the missing climber slide by him, and observed that the faller did not appear to be self arresting. He concluded to himself "the guy is obviously already dead; there is nothing I can do." He kept on climbing.

 

The second in line came by and the falling climber was now stopped, and sitting up in the snow. This second in line was a doctor. He poked the "dead guy" in the chest with his ice axe, got no response, and concluded "the guy is obviously already dead; there is nothing I can do." He is a doctor but did not check vital signs. He continued on.

 

The third guy came along and the victim was gone, apparently having gotten up and tried once again to stagger down the mountain.

 

All three of these guys were strong climbers, and all had expressed concern for the missing climber before they set out on their summit bid. All felt bad about it but were convinced there was nothing more they could have done.

[chucK]

This second in line was a doctor. He poked the "dead guy" in the chest with his ice axe, got no response, and concluded "the guy is obviously already dead; there is nothing I can do."

 

Sounds like some of same top-notch diagnostic work one can expect at our local hospitals!

 

(meant as a dig at local doctoring, not your friend)

[griz]

I'm thinking Hillary is getting senile or something.

 

I really can't imagine what these people are supposed to do when it's reported 100 below on the summit and this dude is unable to help himself and near death. It's 27k+ for fuck sake! If you do a peak like that then you have to accept that if you can't get yourself up and down then you die. You are kidding yourself otherwise.

 

This news hoo-hah is just it's typical fox-type news coverage...total bullshit.

[lizard_brain]

I bet at the time Inglis was completely STUMPED! (Nyuk - nyuk...)

[brett]

here's a good question for you:

 

what makes you more badass/respectable?

1. summitting and letting a dying man die?

2. giving up on the summit and making an attempt to save him?

 

even if the guy was practically dead, if some folks tried to rescue him he might've gotten some hope inside him to keep him alive long enough to get down.

 

ask yourself: WWSSD? [what would steven seagal do?]

[TREETOAD]

A true mountaineer

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/05/27/everest-rescue.html

 

The rest are merely egotistical posers

[Norman_Clyde]

here's a good question for you:

 

what makes you more badass/respectable?

1. summitting and letting a dying man die?

2. giving up on the summit and making an attempt to save him?

 

 

Once upon a time it might have seemed heroic to summit Everest. These days it seems more like a test of maximum self-centeredness and callous disregard for all the world except Me Me Me. Somehow, all those individuals have gotten their priorities so perverted that not only will they trudge past a desperate, dying human being without helping him, they will even justify this decision as part of some unwritten climber's moral code. Will they come home and say "Look at me, I climbed Everest, I'm a brave heroic hardman"? Instead they should hang their heads and say "I'm a pathetic excuse for a human being, I showed the world how debased I have become in pursuit of ego gratification." If this is what Everest means today, I don't want to be within a hundred miles of base camp.